notification. that is required by law. but we didn't get it 30 days in advance. because of the jeep dhai would have been created to an american life. and again people are going to disagree as to whether or not this agreement should have been reached. that's fair discussion, fair game for debate. but that's a very different issue as to whether or not we should prejudge as to whether or not the president, who acted under his article 2 powers and told us he might when he signed this bill, acted illegally. and that's what this resolution says happened. the president acted illegally and prejudges an investigation. and i think for a number of reasons it is inappropriate for us to adopt this resolution, and so i will object. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: it is unfortunate

we can't find at least at this point bipartisan agreement on something as straightforward as this. to my friend from michigan, i would say a couple of things. one, this resolution does not prejudge the investigation. the resolution does not talk about the president's article 2 powers. it very clearly says the transfers of these detainees violated the national defense authorization act legislation that you brought to the floor and the appropriations bill. that's what it says. so that is clear by the very language in those bills, that it does violate those bills. it doesn't talk about the constitutional authorities the president may have. it does say that it violates the clear terms of this legislation. it does not prejudge the investigation, which is into why. with again the intent of trying to keep this from happening again. and i do think the president could have used reasoned

judgment from people who have been around for awhile, maybe even senator levin, who has strong views on these national security matters and was involved earlier in hearings that i was in where under oath administration officials talked about how dangerous these very men were. second, senator levin is correct when he says the president can't change the law, and that's what we're saying. he can't change the law. if he didn't believe that this law was appropriate, he should have vetoed it. and he's done that in the past, as have other presidents, vetoed legislation they didn't agree with. i do believe that under article 2, that chairman levin is correct that the president does have certain authorities. and that's why we were very careful when we drafted this legislation, this resolution, to say this says that the congress shall go on record establishing that under the clear terms of these two laws that were passed by the congress, signed into law by the president, the president did not follow the terms of those laws. that's clear.

the investigation then is into why. and the armed services committee would have the ability to do that. by the way, today i know many are celebrating the capture of ahmed abu khatalla, one of the terrorists who attacked the american compound in benghazi. and i am glad to hear that we have captured him and understand he might be on his way back to the united states of america. it's interesting because we got notice. i don't know if the chairman was notified. that wasn't required by law, by the way. it's just common practice that that happens when you have a relationship between the administration and congress that it's confidential. we were notified of course with regard to the bin laden capture. i can't imagine the bin laden capture was any less sensitive or any different in kind to make

it something that we could do notification on and couldn't do it on the release of these five detainees from guantanamo. so this is something that i think is very reasonable. we're asking for justification not after the decision is made. that's not what the legislation says. it says before the decision is made so that congress can have the opportunity to discuss this with the president and to make sure that in fact we are proceeding appropriately with these very dangerous detainees at guantanamo. i would again make the point that some of these detainees were -- detainees at guantanamo right now are people who like in the case of these five taliban are considered to be extremely danger. i would ask the question, if congress is on record saying we expect the law to be followed here and the president ought to notify congress before we release these people, what's going to happen with khalid

sheik humid? what's going to happen -- khalid shake muhammad? what's going to happen with humbali? these are also people who are at guantanamo. the president says he wants to shut it down. i think the legislation that senator levin and others drafted which, by the way, was legislation that changed over time. it evolved. the tphoeufgs -- the notification was a slight requirement on the president compared to the previous legislation when i was on the armed services committee with chairman levin. this was something that we thought about. we decided notification was appropriate. notifying congress and providing detailed justification, it's not too much to ask. again, mr. president, we require the president to consult with congress before releasing guantanamo detainees. we spoke with one voice here in the united states congress. the president ignored that legal requirement. he ignored the voice of congress, ignored the law. if we're not going to hold him

accountable, i don't know who will. again, what does it say about the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution, which simply says congress has a role as one of the branches of government. no declaration, no investigation, no recourse. i don't think that's going to be helpful in terms of ensuring that balance of power continues and that, again, we don't have this situation recur as the president is talking about shutting down guantanamo bay and releasing other detainees. i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their course of action today and take a careful look at this resolution which was carefully drafted including not to impinge on the president's constitutional powers under article 2. i think the stakes are simply too high to do otherwise. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, thank you. and i thank my friend from ohio. mr. president, first of all, what the resolution says, let me read the resolution. "congress should investigate the

actions taken by president obama and his administration that led to the unlawful transfer of such detainees." so when my friend says it doesn't say, doesn't prejudge that it was unlawful, by its very terms it says "investigate the actions taken by president obama that led to the unlawful transfer of such detainees." that's what the resolution says. secondly, the point that the resolution makes no reference to article 2. my friend says that, and he's accurate in that regard. that's the problem. what's missing is what the president was advised he could do, act under his article 2 powers, and what the president said he would do when he signed this bill. third, the fact that we were notified of bin laden's capture,

i don't know how many of us were notified, but it sure wasn't 30 days before he was captured if it was at all. that's the issue here. not whether or not the president should have notified. and, by the way, i think he could have done a better job of notifying congress. that's not the question. the question is whether or not he he acted illegally, as the resolution says he did, because he didn't follow the 30-day notice requirement which, in his judgment and i think a lot of other people's judgments, including mine, would have jeopardized the life of an american citizen. so he acted under article 2 powers to avoid that jeopardy. and there is no reference to article 2 in here. there is no reference to the fact that the department of justice informed the president he could act without abiding by a 30-day provision if he acted under his article 2 power to save the life of an american citizen. there are many reasons that this resolution -- there's many problems that it seems to me this resolution does not fairly

address or resolve, and that is the reason that i object. one other thing, and that is my friend from ohio made reference to james clapper who is the director of national intelligence. director clapper supports the deal that was made relative to this transfer, as does general demsey, the chairman of the joint chief of staffs; and admiral winifeld, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs. i yield the floor. i have one other unanimous consent request, and that the time until 4:45 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and at 4:45 p.m. all postcloture time be expired and the national proceed to vote on the confirmation of calendar number 572 with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. levin: mr. president, with this agreement there will be two roll call votes at 4:45 p.m. first on the confirmation of peter kadzik to be an assistant attorney general. and second on cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 4460, the house commerce-science-justice appropriations act. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm coming to the floor today to talk about what is happening in ukraine. but before i do that, i can't help but having heard some of the discussion before this from my colleague from michigan and my colleague from ohio and i would just like to add this to that discussion. first of all, the president

didn't even notify the chair of the intelligence committee and the ranking member of that committee. and i think it's clear why he didn't notify the chair of the intelligence committee, because there was widespread opposition to transferring these five particular detainees from the intelligence committee, and that was made clear to the administration well before this prisoner swap was made. moreover, what i find not only shocking that the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee wasn't consulted about this, but the thing that made my jaw drop was when i learned that our commander in afghanistan had not been consulted in advance about the impact on the ground about this particular prisoner transfer in terms of the five

taliban detainees which, make no mistake, what our intelligence community has said is that these five detainees, the five taliban dream team, on a scale of one to ten, how likely will it be that they get back in the fight against us and our allies and against our interests, four of them we were told are a ten out of ten that they will get back into the fight. that's why these five detainees were designated as high-risk by the board that is supposed to review these things and decide whether prisoners can be safely transferred out of guantanamo or whether they should be indefinitely detained. and so i just wanted to add that to this discussion because it's important to understand, i do believe that we should bring our men and women home who have served our country. but these five detainees

represent a real danger to us and our allies going forward. and that is why even the intel committee on a bipartisan basis didn't think that this was a good idea. and the notion that the president couldn't trust, for example, the ranking member of the intel committee, who i have great respect for, and the chairman of that committee, who we entrust every day to hold classified information to ask at least what the intel committee thought, i just think that that is absurd, that they would have put somehow at risk our soldier in afghanistan. i wanted to add that to the discussion. and it seems to me that if you really wanted to consult on the ground with our commander in afghanistan, we would want to know from him in advance what he thought about putting the five detainees back in the battle space regardless of what he thinks now about it, because

making a good decision means consulting the people who are knowledgeable about this in advance. and what worries me most about this transfer is the fact that the five out of five are likely to get back in the fight, and we don't have a good really record on this. the estimates are that 29% of those who have been detained in guantanamo have gotten, either gotten directly back in the fight or we believe have gotten back in the fight against our interests or the interests of our allies. and that is the national security concern about this transfer. but i am here, mr. president, today to talk about the situation in ukraine. and as we look around the world, there is so much happening and so much which is of concern to our country. but today i'd like to focus on ukraine and what russia is doing

in eastern ukraine to interfere with the sovereignty of the ukrainian people, to interfere with their choice of how they want to conduct their country, the choices that they have a right to make for their own country. and, of course, this began with the illegal invasion and annexation of crimea. but it has not stopped there. it has continued in eastern ukraine where essentially you have seen violence and turmoil and parts of eastern ukraine. and make no mistake what the cause of that violence and turmoil by the so-called separatists that are causing this violence in eastern ukraine. the cause is very clear.

vladimir putin and russia hold the key to that violence. they hold the key and are as responsible for that violence as they are responsible for the illegal invasion of the crimea. and, in fact, i would say that vladimir putin really has operational control of what's happening. he could ask those separatists to stop what they're doing. he could stop giving them arms. he could stop doing the things that he has been doing, including giving them the capability of shooting down ukranian planes, giving them the capability of tanks, arms. all that the ukranian people are trying to deal with, and what do they want? the ukranian people want to determine their own future. they want vladimir putin and russia to butt out. they want russia to respect

their sovereign territory, and unfortunately none of this is happening. now, recently i had the honor of leading a delegation to ukraine to oversee the presidential election last month. i had the chance to sit down and meet now-elected president toroshenko in ukraine. i had the chance to see their elections firsthand. one of the things that was very inspiring to me was the first polling place i went to in kiev, there was an older gentleman probably in his 70's. he cast the first ballot of the day at the polling place we were at. he came up o'he passed the ballot, and as he cast his ballot, he said for democracy. that was a very moving moment because that is what we saw

throughout the polling places that we observed in ukraine, that they had very high turnout. the ukranian people coming out to vote in their elections to choose their president, not a president chosen by vladimir putin. a president chosen by the ukranian people. and they did it despite what was happening in eastern ukraine. they did it despite the threats that russia made against their sovereignty and their country. i think they did it in spite of russia to say as a message, as a people that we're going to determine our future. vladimir putin, you are not going to determine our future. i found the whole thing inspiring. and why does ukraine and what happens there matter to the united states of america?

first of all, if you look at what is happening in ukraine, if russia believes that they can go in and invade the sovereign territory of another country without consequences, what does that mean for the rest of europe and the security of europe? unfortunately, we've seen history like this before in terms of where countries are invaded and other countries act in an apathetic fashion and there aren't consequences to pay for it. what we have heard from our president is, if you have listened to his speech that he made in warsaw, poland, on june 4 of this year to celebrate the 25th anniversary of freedom day there, it was a moving speech. in that speech, the president said ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself

and by itself. so we will not accept russia's occupation of crimea for its violation of ukraine sovereignty. and it means increased support to help our friends like ukraine and moldova and georgia, all of whom are watching what's happening in ukraine and wondering will we be next if there are no consequences for invading ukraine? to help them to provide for their own defense, our free nations will stand united so that further russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for russia. in fact, as i went to ukraine to oversee the elections, the president had said with those impending presidential elections in ukraine, along with chancellor america elf -- chancellor merkel of germany, that if the ukranian elections were interfered with, there

would be more costs to russia. well, guess what? when i was there overseeing the elections in places like kiev where we had record turnout, in the eastern provinces, the russians continued to foment violence. in dunesk and luhans, the people there did not have the right to vote to exercise their decisionmaking for the future of their country. so where were the costs for that? there were none imposed. in fact, the sanctions that have been imposed, the economic sanctions by this administration really have not had an impact on russia. in fact, their stock market is back from where it was before the sanctions, and they feel that at this point they have gotten away with it, really, because our economic sanctions that we imposed prior to those

elections, they imposed some sanctions on individuals, some minimal sanctions on sectoral but very, very limited, and we have done nothing to actually support the ukranians in helping them to defend themselves. so what's happened since the president said costs, if you interfere with the election? nothing happened, even though the russians continued to foment violence in the east. flash forward, the warsaw speech. in poland where the president said further aggression by the russians, there will be costs if they interfere with the sovereignty of ukraine. well, guess what's happened since then. since that time, the developments have been absolutely shocking, and i think the russians are trying to take advantage of what's happening in iraq, other things happening around the world, thinking that we will lose sight of their

illegal invasion of ukraine and what they are doing in eastern uconn. so on june 12, russian-backed separatists in ukraine reportedly acquired t-64 tanks and b.m. 21 rocket launchers from russia. so these are the kinds of vehicles, rocket launchers that russia is supplying to their agents essentially in eastern ukraine. they are putting tanks -- there have been tanks sighted. this is no grassroots movement. tanks, rockets, all provided by russia to kill ukranian people who are trying to defend their sovereignty, and this has all happened since the elections, adding on the violence that was committed in eastern ukraine during the elections. the president said there will be

costs. there have been no costs for tanks and missile launchers in eastern ukraine, and in fact on june 14, pro-russian separatists shot down a ukranian military transport, killing all 49 people on board. in the deadly episode of months of unrest in ukraine. this is the type of transport that the russians, their agents that they backed shot down. in order to shoot down a plane like this, you have to have the technology to do it, and guess who is giving them that technology. russia. yet, there have been no costs to that because at this point the president has just talked. he has not imposed tougher sanctions on the economy of russia. he has not provided the ukranian military for the support, and this is what it looked like when

they shot down those 49 people were killed and the russian agents and their separatists that they are giving the arms to do this shot down that plane, and this is the actual picture from that. at this point, what's the state department response? what has our administration said? we're highly concerned about the new russian efforts to support the separatists. we're very concerned. if they don't de-escalate, there will be additional costs. well, how many times will our president say and the state department say there will be additional costs if the russians do anything further, and how many times will the russians again shoot down the ukranian planes by giving these arms to their agents, their separatists? how many more tanks have to cross the ukranian border that are russian tanks before we will impose such costs, because words

don't mean anything to someone like vladimir putin, and he knows that we keep talking and we're not acting so he can keep shooting down their planes, he can keep making sure that the tanks roll over the border, the russian tanks. this is no grassroots movement with tanks and rocket launchers to shoot down aircraft. this is a subversion where the russians are also trying to repeat the playbook of what happened in crimea to further take over the rest of ukraine, and it is time for us to back up our words with actions. what kind of actions are we talking about? we're talking about legislation that we have offered here in the congress that i have worked on with senator corker and others. legislation that will impose tougher economic sanctions on russia that will make a

difference to them and their economy. financial sector sanctions, energy sector, military sector sanctions, sanctions that will send the message that, yes, this will hurt your economy if you don't respect the sovereignty of another country or if you continue to escalate the violence by providing not only tanks but also rocket launchers and shooting down planes of the ukranian people. now, when i had the chance to meet with the new president of ukraine, he had a request from us. first of all, he wants to make sure that we're tougher than we're being on russia in terms of sanctions, economic sanctions. so that russia doesn't continue to invade their territory. and not only that, so that they don't go into other countries in the region. we need to use the economic

tools at our disposal so that we aren't forced to use military tools down the line. we have economic tools that this administration is not using to impose costs on russia and to back up the words of our president rather than continuing to look the other way as the tanks roll in and the airplanes are shot down. what else can we do? so the president asked me about supporting their military. no one wants to send a u.s. troop to ukraine. no one wants to send our people to fight their battle, but this is what he asked of us. he asked the former russian-backed president gutted our military. can you help get us some basic things for our military -- body armor, communications equipment, night vision goggles. in addition, antitank, antiaircraft capability.

what would that do for them? they could defend themselves from the tanks. they could help push back against their planes being shot down. so what they want is the ability and the help to defend themselves. and why should we give it to them? we should give it to them because not only is it the right thing to do so that they can help defend themselves, so we can push back against the russian invasion of their country, but it is the right thing to do because we were a signatory to the budapest memorandum. ukraine, in 1994, gave up their nuclear weapons. they gave up their nuclear weapons under the budapest memory, that the united states, the united kingdom and russia signed. now, russia has violated this agreement because the agreement required all parties to respect the sovereignty of ukraine, and the agreement required us and

said we would respect not only their sovereignty but they expected some security assurances because they were giving up their nuclear weapons by signing this agreement. and we can't even give them antitank, antiaircraft equipment so they can defend themselves when they gave up nuclear weapons? what other country in the world is going to give up their nuclear weapons when we're not even going to impose tough economic sanctions when they're invaded, we're not going to give them basic military equipment to defend themselves when they're invaded. i would argue looking at this playbook no rational country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again in such an agreement if we don't actually follow through in what our president said which is there will be costs if there -- if the russians continue to invade the territory of ukraine.

finally, i don't expect us to go alone. the presiding officer: the time has expired. ms. ayotte: can i have one more minute, by owk. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: i would ask our european partners to step up, too, and it was a shame that the french will continue to continue their recent sale to the russians to give them further capability of the amphibious assault ships. shame on the french for that was europe is threatened by the russian aggression here and i not only expect are our country to follow through but our allies should be gill bill to follow through as well. mr. president, ukraine matters. we cannot continue to look the other way as russia thinks that they can invade another country without consequences, and we can make a difference in this congress. i would urge the president to follow through on his words.

otherwise, don't say it if you aren't willing to back it up, mr. president. the ukranian people deserve our support, they love america, and all they want is to determine their own future instead of vladimir putin determining their future for them. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i rise today to talk about an important topic, the topic of embassy security. the safety of embassies abroad and especially our capital a ambassadors and small a ambassadors who go to work, 182 countries where we where have embassies to represent the united states. embassy security was in the news yesterday. the president announced the dispatch of 275 marines to baghdad to protect the embassy in iraq and today we received the news of the law enforcement works done by the united states

to finally capture one of the leaders behind the raid on benghazi in september of 2012. obviously, embassy security is an important and very newsworthy and topical issue. mr. president, i think you noticed what i did was in the aftermath of the tragic attack on the embassy compound in benghazi that cost four americans their lives there has been much discussion in congress about benghazi. but too much of it in my view has been focused on trying to play the blame game than trying to talk about what we should do to minimize the chance of an incident like that happening again. we've seen attacks on embassies from the attack on the u.s. embassy in beirut to attacks in the 1980's, attacks on embassies in africa in the 1990's, we've seen this before. but what we ought to be talking about in this body and in the house is how to make our

embassies safer instead of trying to play a blame game. and, mr. president, i want to bring in this speech one troubling fact about embassy security that should trouble us a lot and especially us in the senate. of the 182 countries in the world that have united states ambassadors, 54 of the u.s. after posts -- ambassador posts are vacant. nearly 30% of the ambassador posts in the world where the u.s. ambassador goes to represent us are currently event. 10 of the posts are vacant because the white house has not forwarded a name to the senate which is responsible for the consent to those nominations. one of those ten, syria, has not been forwarded because of security reasons. 21 posts are vacant because the white house has sent nominees but the nominees are pending in the foreign relations committee where i serve, the chairman of the committee, senator

menendez, is doing all he can to move those through but is facing pretty significant opposition often from members of the committee. and 23 of the positions, mr. president, are vacant because they've gone through the foreign relations committee, they've received overwhelming votes of support, but they're being held here on the senate floor about no action on the senate floor often for a very, very long period of time. let me tell you about those 23 nations. the ambassador to the nation of djibouti which is a critical partner in counterterrorism operations. his nomination has been pending in the senate for 67 days. the czech republic, 59 days. the bahamas, nomination pending 122 days. the state of kuwait in the middle east, critical area, nomination pending for 179 days. bosnia-herzegovina 200 days,

new zealand, 220 days, iceland 223 days, zambia, 270 days, the gab onese republic, 270 days, the islamic republic of mauritania pending here in the senate 272 days, kingdom of norway 272 days, jamaica 272 days, the kingdom of losuto, 232 days, democratic republic of timor, 314 days, namibia 314 days, niger, niger, critical in issues of terrorism and counterterrorism in africa, nomination on this floor pending for 314 days, trinidad and tobacco aigo 14 days, albania, 319 days, and topping the list, a strong ally of the united states, the republic of

peru, the ambassadorial nomination pending on the floor of the senate for 353 days, almost a year. again, mr. president, these vacancies represent nearly 30% of all of the in-country ambassadorships that the united states send around the globe. essentially just hanging a sign out in front of the of united states with a vacant sign on it. i would submit, mr. president, that vacancies means an uncertainty about leadership and that hurts embassy security. you and i were both governors. we know that our agencies ran a lot better when they knew who the leaders were. an interim, a part time, a temporary, an account acting, that's not the same thing as a leader. that's not the same thing as a confirmed ambassador. an so our personnel who are serving in these 54 embassies

around the world often in very dangerous places in the world, they're there waiting for their leader to come. now, they have a deputy in charge of the mission and those people are usually fine. but even that deputy is waiting to find out who will our leader be. and times of uncertainty increase insecurity. so i would say to my colleagues, if you really care about benghazi and embassy security, you should care about confirming embassies in these -- ambassadors in these 54 nations that are waiting for american leadership. the ability to promptly nominate and confirm these ambassadors is directly connected to our security and i would argue that individuals blocking or slowing down ambassadorial appointments are not being accurate when they claim to support embassy security. now, mr. president, the effects of these vacancies are not just in the security of our

embassies, obviously. i often hear colleagues on the floor of this body or see them on television criticizing america as retreating from global leadership. well, if you care about america's global leadership, why allow 54 american embassies around the world to not have ambassadors? why allow those vacancies to exist until the existence of these vacancies, some for nearly as long as a year, sends a pretty powerful message to the nations where the vacancies exist. and the message could be interpreted one of two ways. maybe the u.s. is retreating from global leadership because if the u.s. cared, the senate would confirm ambassadors. or, in some countries the interpretation is a little bit different, it's not about global leadership, some countries interpret it as maybe we are not that important to the united states. it's a sign of disrespect to

nations as important as niger, some of the nations in the middle east i mentioned, france, to not have ambassadors for extended periods of time. this is a very, very important issue, and, mr. president, i don't think this body, which is constitutionally charged with this responsibility, should be complicit in sending a message to the nations of the world that we're retreating or that we're uninterested in our relationships with them. let me conclude just by coming back to the subject of embassy security. mr. president, i know you, like i, in this job have had the opportunity to travel around the world and meet some of our embassy personnel and what i try to do when i travel, i imagine you try to do the same thing is not just spend time with the capital a ambassadors, that's important, but i also try to spend time with the small a

ambassadors, the foreign service officers on their first or second tour who have chosen even though the salary isn't great, even though the working conditions can be tough, even know, though, security challenges are significant, they've chosen to serve the united states abroad. i was in beirut in lebanon in february with senator angus king of maine. let me just tell you about our personnel in lebanon. because of the dangers in that country, they all have to live on the embassy compound. they live there in beirut which has been subject to some very, very difficult times. the u.s. marine barracks in beirut were bombed in the 1980's, the embassy was bombed, hundreds killed, the u.s. embassy an ex was bombed -- annex was bombed, hundreds of americans serving not just in the military but as foreign service officers lost their lives in lebanon

representing us in the best way they could. for that reason our embassy personnel live on the embassy compound in beirut. and, mr. president, guess what kind of personal life they have. they are allowed six hours a week, personal time, to be off the embassy compound. and they have to be escorted by security and they describe what it's like. they might want to go to the beach and traffic is horrible. so in that six hours a week it's an hour and a half to get to where you want to go and then an hour and a half to get back from where you want to go so what you really get is about three hours a week of personal time. that's what these wonderful american publicker is servants -- public servants do. i then went to egypt and had a visit with a young first-tour foreign service officer there who was talking about needing to finish a meeting's we were having because of the skype date with her husband.

now, i was not familiar with that terminology. well, she serves in a capacity where for safety and other reasons not ideal for him to be there with her. so friday night 1993 both dress up and with a glass of wine then fire up the skype and they talk yoos across thousands of miles to try to keep their marriage alive. this is a person who was thrilled to serve the united states in a dangerous part of the world. again, it's not for the salary. it's not for the comfort. it's for the honor of representing this country. we owe them something. we owe them a security operation that can make them feel not completely safe because there's no guarantee of safety for our personnel in many of these countries but at least that we're doing doing all that we can to try to keep them safe. and, mr. president, i stand today because we're not doing all we can to keep these people safe.

to the extent that we, the senate, is responsible for the vacancies of nearly 30% of the ambassadorial posts around the world, and the absence of ambassadors leads to additional insecurity, we are not honoring our obligation to the brave americans who want to serve this nation in very dangerous places. i urge my colleagues if you're talking about benghazi and the need for more embassy security, you should be promptly confirming ambassadors to represent the united states. if you're worried about the role of america in the world and you're asserting critically that america's retreating from global leadership, you should be confirming promptly the ambassadorial nominees here before the united states. with that, mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. without objection the quorum call be suspended. under the previous order, the question occurs on the kadzik nomination. the question occurs on the kadzik nomination. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 5, the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate

will resume legislative session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 428, h.r. 4660, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 4660, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 95, the nays are 3. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i rise to speak to the 42 very well qualified and very patient nominees who through no fault of their own and certainly no fault of the foreign relations committee and no fault of their records in many cases of service to this nation have been established are caught in the senate -- madam president, the senate is not in order.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators will take their conversations outside the chamber, please. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, madam president. i'm talking about nominees who are trapped on the executive calendar unable to assume their appointed posts because the republican leadership has chosen obstructionism as a political tool. they have consciously chosen a strategy to do nothing, pass nothing, approve nothing and leave, most importantly, in my view, key diplomatic posts

unfilled for months, threatening in many cases national security and our ability to conduct foreign policy. now, those who say that congress is broken or wrong, the congress isn't broken, but if the republican leadership wants you to believe it is, they use every parliament tool to make certain, among other posts, we cannot fill key foreign policy positions, and the world waits and american foreign policy waits and diplomacy waits, and our allies wait to let these nominees and their families have some cloture and get to work. now, the blame for these posts being left vacant for these people being in political limbo really rests squarely on the shoulders of the republican leadership. it's not a problem with congress or with democrats or with the president or with the senate

foreign relations committee. never to my knowledge has this body as a political strategy obstructed en masse the appointments of noncontroversial career foreign service officers who have worked for both democratic and republican administrations, never. never have we held up appointments to so many ambassadorial positions, state department positions, usaid positions and representatives to the multilateral development banks. 18 of the 42 pending nominees are ambassadors who would fill important posts in the czech republic, in bosnia,al gain yeah, cameroon, niger, sierra leone, and kuwait. nearly 20%, 20% of our ambassadorial presence in africa

is being held up by the republican leadership. all of them have waited on average 280 days, 280 days for senate action. that's unfair to them, it's unfair to their families, it's bad policy, it's unnecessary, irresponsible and completely unacceptable, and it has to end. it harms our regional coordination on issues like food security and counterterrorism. we're seeing what's happening across africa, particularly northern africa, and we have a challenge. we have a challenge that involves our national interests and our national security. you cannot promote the solutions to those challenges if you don't have an ambassador on the ground in those countries. let's remember that u.s. leadership plays a major role in

supporting peace and security efforts alongside our development, democracy and humanitarian goals across africa and around the world, preventing us from being able to project power and leadership, leaving us in my view vulnerable from a national security standpoint. in west africa, the nigerian terrorist organization boko haram is perpetuating a brutal campaign of violence and fear, kidnapping young women and taking advantage of porous borders with niger and cameroon. the united states is leading an effort with our international partners to improve regional coordination to address both this threat and serious development challenges in the region. unfortunately, the senate has yet to confirm the ambassadorial nominees to my -- niger or

cameroon. we need to fill these ambassadorial positions in order to be able to promote our interest in the region in pursuit of some of these goals. morotania has been a key partner in opposing the threat of the atyn in volatile regions of africa. let's not forget that the east african nation of djibouti hosts east africa combined joint task force. the point of africa and the u.s. military's only enduring infrastructure in africa. camp flenear, home to some thousands of service members and civilians, our cooperation with djibouti supports counterterrorism efforts against al-jahab and the nearby yemen and eant-piracy operations in the gulf of aden.

al-shahab carried out a target in gentleman beauty, yet our ambassadorial nominee thomas kelly remains unconfirmed. in addition to supporting peace and security efforts in africa, the united states also plays a key role supporting democratic governance across the continent which in turn contributes to greater stability. niger and namibia are set to hold presidential elections within the next nine months and both ambassadorial nominees have yet to be confirmed by the full senate. at a time when stability in parts of africa is tenuous at best, with conflicts, famine and the ever-increasing threat from criminal and terrorist organizations, it's simply not in our national interests to have the president's nominees, many of them career foreign service officers in many cases,

held up for political reasons for nearly a year, a year in so many cases. madam president, united states leadership in international organizations is being negatively affected. in fact, the nominee for assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs was reported to the senate on march 3. her nomination is not the least bit controversial, and yet she has not been confirmed. nominees for posts at the united nations have been pending for months, including the nominee to the u.s. representative to the u.n. conference on disarmament who was reported out on march march 11. these gaps have affected our credibility around the world, and they are affecting u.s. national security. now, it's worth understanding that this list is not static. we are constantly adding nominees to the executive

calendar. we held hearings for an additional five nominees last week. four more had their hearings today chaired by senator carper who is here on the floor with me and has done an exceptional job in this regard, including our nominees to be ambassador to korea and vietnam. simply stated, the backlog is weakening america's role in the world. the vast majority of these nominees are uncontroverted. they have passed the committee by voice vote. not even a recorded vote. and are nominations that normally would have gone through the senate en bloc by unanimous consent. holding them hostage is simply wrong on every level. never has one party stood in the way of the full and complete conduct of foreign policy, and it's time the american people understand who is to blame for the dysfunction that is holding

them hostage for political reasons, and as we hold up action on these nominees, the world is convulsing. the days are filled with a steady steam of breaking news stories, disheartening images, trending tweets with reports of unrest in the ukraine, iraq, venezuela, mass atrocities in syria, south sudan, the central african republic, heart wrenching accounts of kidnapped girls in nigeria and violence against women in egypt, pakistan, afghanistan and other parts of the world. that is the daily diet of what we see unfolding across the world. american leadership is expected by the international community during this challenging period, and it is in fact something that is in our own national interests and national security interests. now, some complain that the united states does too much and others argue we don't do enough, but always the debate on foreign

affairs is centered on our nation and the vital role we fill within the international system. we live in a new world defined by technological advancement and rapid globalization, but we are historybound by a deeply imbued duty to provide moral clarity when it appears lacking, of serving as a lighthouse to a community of nations undergoing profound transformation. in one very particular arena, we are failing this charge. we are leaving our embassies without the tools they need, without the necessary leadership to pick up that metaphorical hammer. madam president, using obstruction as a political tool, we are being forced to turn from our vital responsibility of confirming ambassadorial nominees to conduct american foreign policy. that means turning from our responsibility in everything from providing emergency services for americans abroad to

responding to humanitarian crises around the world to supporting u.s. businesses and our commerce agenda overseas. a lack of confirmed ambassadors is crippling our global agenda. consider this -- key u.s.-held positions at the world bank, international monetary fund, the inter-american development bank, the european bank for reconstruction and development, and other international financial institutions are not filled. who is seizing the opportunity? russia and china are actively lobbying i.m.f. members to reduce u.s. ownership share in the bank. recently christine lagarde, the managing director said -- quote -- "i wouldn't be surprised if one of these days the i.m.f. was headquartered in beijing." madam president, no nation can hear what we have to say if we

are not there, if we have no voice. and so it's not an overstatement to say that our national security is affected by republican noncooperation. one example -- the assistant secretary of state for verification compliance and implementation, tasked with monitoring and verifying our arms control agreements, remains empty, affecting our ability to design and implement a potential agreement to halt iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. last week, the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing for the nominees to serve in egypt, iraq, and qatar. imagine if those countries not having a united states ambassador, as those countries are going through massive turmoil and change, some of them, not all of them,

certainly in iraq. we will soon vote to approve these foreign service officers but there's no guarantee that they will be confirmed expeditiously by the senate despite the very obvious need for a constant u.s. presence and engagement in these nations. iraq is on the verge of civil war and we have no way to quickly confirm stu jones, a very qualified nominee who is currently serving in jordan for the post to replace robert becroft who is in egypt who is headed to iraq. that this scenario is even a possibility giving the pending asignsments concerns me and should concern all of us. perhaps their fate will be similar to the nominee to kuwait who has not received a confirmation vote for nearly 200 days. the emir of kuwait recently made a historic visit to iran. persistent reports link kuwaiti

donors to groups fighting in syria including the islamic states of iraq and syria, the isis that's threatening iraq. yet we lack an ambassador's ears and eyes on the ground to provide the analysis we need. of the 42 unconfirmed nominees, almost half are career ambassadors, who as i said earlier, have served this nation for a lifetime on behalf of democratic and republican administrations. some already have -- were confirmed, i should say, in the past by the senate and served as ambassadors in previous posts. so let me conclude by saying since i becoming chairman of the senate foreign relations committee we have debated and voted to approve over 125 nominees, oftentimes unanimously and without discord. but apparently the price tag for

leader reid executing what some call the nuclear option for getting anything done in the senate is the republican leadership's intransigence that gums up the senate proceedings, particularly holding ambassadorial nominees hostage and in doing so harm our national security objectives. this senate stand-off is having very negative and real implications in a world that is beset by chaos and in need of american engagement. it has to end, madam president, and it has to end now. it is not about republican or democratic divide in terms of the importance of this. this is about the national interest and security of the united states. if we are not in our embassies abroad with a leader, we can do all the dip policemens a and the efforts from the state department but the end of the day the person on the ground every day engaging with the

leadership of that country, promoting american ideals, promoting american values and promoting american interests is the ambassador. and in the absence of an ambassador we cannot be heard. i don't want the united states not to be heard. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. my colleague from maryland, a distinguished member of the committee, who has held so many of these hearings for nominees, has done a fantastic job on behalf of the committee and the senate in doing so is going to speak next. and as the chair of one of our key subcommittees, it's critical, as you'll hear from him, that we can have our nominees for our interests be pursued. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, first let me thank senator menendez for his incredible leadership on the senate foreign relations committee. what senator menendez did not

bring out is the number of hours that our committee has had hearings on each one of these nominees. we take the nomination process very seriously. the committee does, under senator menendez's leadership. so we have a complete record on the background and experience of each of president obama's nominees. we have vetted them, we have gone through all this, we've had hearings. as senator menendez pointed out, today i chaired a hearing where we considered the nominations for our ambassadors to algeria, vietnam, and the republic of korea, as well as an assistant administrator for usaid for asia. that hearing lasted an hour and a half, many questions were asked, the record is open through thursday, members of the committee can ask additional questions, many times additional questions are asked for the record, we get responses, then analyze all that information, we then go to a committee markup where every

member of the committee has a chance to debate each nominee. and as senator menendez has pointed out, in most cases, they have been approved by our committee by unanimous votes, many times not recorded, because there's no controversy. these are in many cases career diplomats and in other cases people with extraordinary background to add to the service to their country and we are very blessed that they're willing to step forward to take on the ambassadorship or membership in a key international organization to further u.s. foreign policy. that's the record. so what happens after we act, and senator menendez has expedited these nominations as quickly as you could do it. and in carrying out the responsibilities of the senate to advise on these nominations. but what's happened afterwards, they can't get a senate vote. and not because of any herror

yus objections to the confirmation. they're just being backlogged to gum up the operations of the united states senate. there is no policy reason, no substantive reason for the delay and in the consideration of these nominations. madam president, this is foreign policy of the united states. this is what's in the u.s. interest. and it's hard, i think, for the public to understand, it's very hard for this senator to understand why we would hold up having a confirmed ambassador heading up our embassy in any country in the world, particularly those countries that are critically important to u.s. interest. but in any country we should have a confirmed head of our embassy. so it is affecting u.s. interests. let me just give you what i think is obvious, and the presiding officer understands

this, our national defense strategy depends not just on our soldiers and our weapons. it depends very much on diplomacy and development assistance. well, that, the diplomacy and to a large extent the development assistance is managed by our embassy in the host country. and the c.e.o. of that embassy is the confirmed ambassador. and in many cases we don't have a confirmed ambassador, don't want have an ambassador, that person is missing because the united states senate has not confirmed that position. and for months we have gone without confirming, after the senate foreign relations committee has recommended confirmation. that's why we come to the floor today to talk about that. this does affect our national security interests. senator menendez pointed out a very obvious fact, and that

is, it's the face-to-face interchange of our ambassador in the country that he or she is representing that gives the u.s. the best opportunity in that country. that's how you do diplomacy. you don't do diplomacy through -- through letters, you don't do diplomacy through long exchanges from one country to another, you do it by being in that country. by your personal commitment to that country. that's why we have our embassies and our ambassadors. and when we don't have a confirmed ambassador, the c.e.o. of that embassy there, we miss that personal face-to-face interchange which is critically important. and just think for a moment. here we are trying to make an important contact in a foreign country, and maybe are meeting with the prime minister or with the foreign minister, and we

don't have an ambassador to be our representative or to be there to supervise the diplomacy that is taking place. and what many people probably aren't aware, our embassies are more than just the ambassador dealing with current foreign policy issues. we have a host of functions that are carried out under the supervision of our ambassador. who as we pointed out in many cases is not there because we haven't acted. so maybe we're interested in what's going on with the u.s. business, economic interests. we have a lot of economic interests around the world. we're in a global economy. businesses depend upon our embassy being there for them. the fight -- to fight for the government contracts and a fair, level playing field so they can conduct their business internationally. and they depend upon an embassy to be at full strength because

of global competition we are fighting every day for job opportunities for americans and american companies. in too many countries today we don't have that person there fighting for our businesses because the united states senate has not acted. because those on the other side of the aisle have prevented us from taking up these ambassadors for confirmation even though there's been no controversy surrounding their individual confirmation. that's hurting u.s. interests. there are many u.s. citizens citizens that travel abroad. they expect the 23u8 service of their embassy if they need it, they get sick or need the services of the embassy for whatever that might be. they depend upon that embassy and they want the c.e.o. present of that embassy in order to fight for their interests. well, that confirmed ambassador is not there today because the republicans have denied the vote in the united states senate to

confirm that position. we're not at full strength to protect americans who are traveling abroad. our participation in environmental opportunities are very much -- depend upon the functioning of our embassy. our humanitarian efforts depend upon the functioning of the embassy. our eyes and years on the ground depend upon the functioning agency. our development assistance programs run out of the embassies. the c.e.o. in many cases is not there because the united states senate, because of the obstructionists of the republicans in allowing a vote on noncontroversial nominees has not taken place, we're not at full strength. madam president, we are hurting our country. we are hurting our interests. we're hurting our business interests, our security interests, our leadership on environmental issues, and as

senator menendez pointed out, it's not just the ambassadors to countries, it's the ambassadors to international organizations. we're not at full strength on economic international organizations. we are not at full strength on arms control negotiations because we don't have our key person there, not because that person is controversial, not because the president selected someone who was controversial. to the contrary, almost all of these nominations are noncontroversial, waiting for months. because the republicans will not allow a vote. and some may say don't we need a lot of floor time to debate this? look at the record. look how much floor debate has been spent on approving these nominations. and i'm willing to wager -- although we can't wager on the floor of the senate -- i'm willing to point out that if we

bring these nominations to floor consideration, in almost every case there will be virtually no debate and there they'll be approved by overwhelming majorities if not by unanimous vote on the floor of the united states senate. so we're hurting our country. we're hurting the united states reputation. we're supposedly the -- the major power and yet we can't get a c.e.o. confirmed to head our embassy abroad. it's also unfair to the people who are sacrificing for public service. as senator menendez pointed out, the -- ladies and gentlemen of the jury number of these nominees for ambassadorships are career diplomats. these aren't political appointments. these are career people who've made their career on serving their country. many have young families. what do they do about